Debate Now Social Contract and Validity of Law and Government

[Foxfyre]

Other than being apparently 100% opposed to Obamacare, Conservatives have not come out in open rebellion against Obamacare. But the question in the OP is not whether anybody has,

The question is whether anybody should.

The very rich are not being hurt by it because they can afford to bypass Obamacare. And so has the President and members of Congress bypassed Obamacare for themselves even as they forced it onto the rest of us.

And from what I have been reading, and seeing happen locally, more and more doctors are going into concierge kinds of practices that bypass the insurance industry entirely and many are allowing monthly payments of $135 to $200 a month which puts it into affordable range for many and, because these doctors limit the number of patients they will take, the patient who need to see a doctor can see their doctor immediately. This I suppose is a rebellion of sorts. But it will increase the difficulty of others to be able to see a doctor anywhere other than the urgent care centers and emergency rooms which is already happening almost everywhere.

Most conservatives are too busy working jobs and living their lives to be government activists. As a result we have allowed this monstrosity of a government program and mandate to be forced upon us.

If Congress won't fix it, I don't know how we should fix it ourselves. But I sure hope we figure it out and refuse this kind of unconscionable breach of social contract.

The Constitution was intended to severely limit the authority given to a central government. That concept has been completely stood on its head. We the people can reassign the authority by demanding that this policy be re-implemented. But do we have the courage to do that? And are there enough Americans left who love liberty to get it done at all?

You don't need to make excuses for anyone.

A simple no will do.

As to...whether they should....I am still wondering what form it would take.

A simple 'no' doesn't always work without understanding why the answer is 'no' though.

And I thought my post suggested one form rebellion would take.

Let me get more to the point.

I piss off a lot of conservatives with my positoins on certain issues.

I piss off a lot of liberals with my positions on certain issues.

I am always looking for the proof that things are the way people claim.

I personally, hate Obamacare. Set aside the constitutional argument.

The government is a pretty much a failure compared to what could and should be.....my opinion.

I hear conservatives scream about it.

But I don't see it still being visible. I don't see conservatives talking about a concerted plan to get rid of it. I don't see them addressing the issues it was supposed to address.

It is pretty much dead in the public discourse.

To me, people should be rioting about it. It should not be allowed to pass from the public concious.

There should be open discussions about what we "owe each other" via the social contract (if we owe anythikng).

There should be prominent websites collecting data and broadcasting that data.

I'll answer with the question put to you in the Obamacare thread. What do you think this thread is all about then?

This was one of your topics of discussion:

And who should get to decide that?

And I am working to understand what it means to "decide".

I don't understand your question or your point at all. Please explain.

 

[Foxfyre]

Sun Devil 92 also note that I added a paragraph to the one you quoted in Post #399

 

[Sun Devil 92]

You don't need to make excuses for anyone.

A simple no will do.

As to...whether they should....I am still wondering what form it would take.

A simple 'no' doesn't always work without understanding why the answer is 'no' though.

And I thought my post suggested one form rebellion would take.

Let me get more to the point.

I piss off a lot of conservatives with my positoins on certain issues.

I piss off a lot of liberals with my positions on certain issues.

I am always looking for the proof that things are the way people claim.

I personally, hate Obamacare. Set aside the constitutional argument.

The government is a pretty much a failure compared to what could and should be.....my opinion.

I hear conservatives scream about it.

But I don't see it still being visible. I don't see conservatives talking about a concerted plan to get rid of it. I don't see them addressing the issues it was supposed to address.

It is pretty much dead in the public discourse.

To me, people should be rioting about it. It should not be allowed to pass from the public concious.

There should be open discussions about what we "owe each other" via the social contract (if we owe anythikng).

There should be prominent websites collecting data and broadcasting that data.

I'll answer with the question put to you in the Obamacare thread. What do you think this thread is all about then?

This was one of your topics of discussion:

And who should get to decide that?

And I am working to understand what it means to "decide".

I don't understand your question or your point at all. Please explain.

The bolded section is from the OP. It is one of the questions you asked in regards to breakign the social contract.

 

[Foxfyre]

How social contract happens:
1. A few small scattered rural properties exist and the people on them are self-contained providing their own roads, security, heat, light, water, septic systems etc., grow their own food and drive to distant markets for food and supplies they cannot or it is not practical to produce for themselves.

2. As more people move into the area, it becomes feasible to get together and form an electric co-op to provide electricity.

3. As the population continues to increase, some enterprising entreprenour sees a ready market and opens a small grocery store and gas station. Then a hardware store. And a small cafe. Etc. A commercial business district begins to form.

4. As water and septic tank issues become a problem, the rural and town folks get together and agree to form a community water and sewer system. To help out with everybody's fire insurance premiums, they form a volunteer fire department. Soon there are enough folks to make a school and a church feasible.

5. Eventually because everybody doesn't want to have to stop what they are doing to attend a town meeting to vote, they vote to incorporate their small town and hire a mayor to coordinate and administer all the shared services. A judge was elected to take care of the people's legal needs.

6. In time there is enough pooled money and interest in providing common roads, law enforcement, a public library. Zoning laws became advantageous to protect everybody's property values. A city park is deemed to be desirable for all. But every step of the way it is the people themselves who decide what is in their best interest and how to accomplish it.

FINALLY: at some point, the personnel the people chose to delegate the responsibility to overstepped their authority and put in that inappropriate stop light. Nobody else wanted it or had voted for it. It is a breach of social contract.

What should the response of the people be?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

How social contract happens:
1. A few small scattered rural properties exist and the people on them are self-contained providing their own roads, security, heat, light, water, septic systems etc., grow their own food and drive to distant markets for food and supplies they cannot or it is not practical to produce for themselves.

2. As more people move into the area, it becomes feasible to get together and form an electric co-op to provide electricity.

3. As the population continues to increase, some enterprising entreprenour sees a ready market and opens a small grocery store and gas station. Then a hardware store. And a small cafe. Etc. A commercial business district begins to form.

4. As water and septic tank issues become a problem, the rural and town folks get together and agree to form a community water and sewer system. To help out with everybody's fire insurance premiums, they form a volunteer fire department. Soon there are enough folks to make a school and a church feasible.

5. Eventually because everybody doesn't want to have to stop what they are doing to attend a town meeting to vote, they vote to incorporate their small town and hire a mayor to coordinate and administer all the shared services. A judge was elected to take care of the people's legal needs.

6. In time there is enough pooled money and interest in providing common roads, law enforcement, a public library. Zoning laws became advantageous to protect everybody's property values. A city park is deemed to be desirable for all. But every step of the way it is the people themselves who decide what is in their best interest and how to accomplish it.

FINALLY: at some point, the personnel the people chose to delegate the responsibility to overstepped their authority and put in that inappropriate stop light. Nobody else wanted it or had voted for it. It is a breach of social contract.

What should the response of the people be?

Maybe they should shoot each other.

The breach wasn't in the stop light being put in. It was electing those morons to begin with.

The breach is rectified when they elect people to take it out.

Why blame the elected officials ?

 

[JakeStarkey]

How social contract happens:
1. A few small scattered rural properties exist and the people on them are self-contained providing their own roads, security, heat, light, water, septic systems etc., grow their own food and drive to distant markets for food and supplies they cannot or it is not practical to produce for themselves.

2. As more people move into the area, it becomes feasible to get together and form an electric co-op to provide electricity.

3. As the population continues to increase, some enterprising entreprenour sees a ready market and opens a small grocery store and gas station. Then a hardware store. And a small cafe. Etc. A commercial business district begins to form.

4. As water and septic tank issues become a problem, the rural and town folks get together and agree to form a community water and sewer system. To help out with everybody's fire insurance premiums, they form a volunteer fire department. Soon there are enough folks to make a school and a church feasible.

5. Eventually because everybody doesn't want to have to stop what they are doing to attend a town meeting to vote, they vote to incorporate their small town and hire a mayor to coordinate and administer all the shared services. A judge was elected to take care of the people's legal needs.

6. In time there is enough pooled money and interest in providing common roads, law enforcement, a public library. Zoning laws became advantageous to protect everybody's property values. A city park is deemed to be desirable for all. But every step of the way it is the people themselves who decide what is in their best interest and how to accomplish it.

FINALLY: at some point, the personnel the people chose to delegate the responsibility to overstepped their authority and put in that inappropriate stop light. Nobody else wanted it or had voted for it. It is a breach of social contract.

What should the response of the people be?

Maybe they should shoot each other.

The breach wasn't in the stop light being put in. It was electing those morons to begin with.

The breach is rectified when they elect people to take it out.

Why blame the elected officials ?

There is no breech, just the officials acting. which is what republican government does: one step from the voters.

So . . . get enough voters to elect people who will appoint folks to take out the stop light.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Is the Social Contract explicit or implied ?

 

[Foxfyre]

Is the Social Contract explicit or implied ?

Social contract is a concept, a process. It can result in explicit laws, codes, regulations etc. or it can create a culture in which some things are not 'law' per se but are just understood to be the way things are, like removing your hat when you enter the church or waiting your turn to be served at McDonalds.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Is the Social Contract explicit or implied ?

Social contract is a concept, a process. It can result in explicit laws, codes, regulations etc. or it can create a culture in which some things are not 'law' per se but are just understood to be the way things are, like removing your hat when you enter the church or waiting your turn to be served at McDonalds.

Thanks for the answer.

I can't recall if this was discussed in the thread earlier.

 

[Foxfyre]

Is the Social Contract explicit or implied ?

Social contract is a concept, a process. It can result in explicit laws, codes, regulations etc. or it can create a culture in which some things are not 'law' per se but are just understood to be the way things are, like removing your hat when you enter the church or waiting your turn to be served at McDonalds.

Thanks for the answer.

I can't recall if this was discussed in the thread earlier.

It was spelled out in the OP and has been discussed a great deal in the thread, but that sometimes gets lost in the chatter in which people demand that social contract be defined as something other than what it is.

Post #404 illustrates a process that, in various ways, most social contract has happened to form the villages, towns, cities, counties, and states that make up the United States of America. Most people who understand what social contract is and how it is implemented probably don't have much if any quarrel with that illustration.

But in the same illustration is the issue of a traffic light that is a breach of the authority the people gave to the town government. In that case, do the townspeople have a legitimate reason to disobey the law? To take the traffic light down themselves? To demand that it be removed? To ride the errant official out of town on a rail?

What is the appropriate response for a civilized and law abiding society in a case like that?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Is the Social Contract explicit or implied ?

Social contract is a concept, a process. It can result in explicit laws, codes, regulations etc. or it can create a culture in which some things are not 'law' per se but are just understood to be the way things are, like removing your hat when you enter the church or waiting your turn to be served at McDonalds.

Thanks for the answer.

I can't recall if this was discussed in the thread earlier.

It was spelled out in the OP and has been discussed a great deal in the thread, but that sometimes gets lost in the chatter in which people demand that social contract be defined as something other than what it is.

Post #404 illustrates a process that, in various ways, most social contract has happened to form the villages, towns, cities, counties, and states that make up the United States of America. Most people who understand what social contract is and how it is implemented probably don't have much if any quarrel with that illustration.

But in the same illustration is the issue of a traffic light that is a breach of the authority the people gave to the town government. In that case, do the townspeople have a legitimate reason to disobey the law? To take the traffic light down themselves? To demand that it be removed? To ride the errant official out of town on a rail?

What is the appropriate response for a civilized and law abiding society in a case like that?

What errant official ? The one they elected. If they don't like him or her....unelect them....recall them. Protest. Demand it be taken down.

They elected the officials. That is not a social contract with them. The townspeople, long ago, ceded their right to disobedience in order to preserve other rights they felt were more important.

The answer is to elect people to office who will take it down.

Disobedience is breaking the law and that bring penalties. If they think they are